San Diego Tax Fighters
written by Richard Rider, Chairman
Phone: 858-530-3027
Email: RRider@san.rr.com Blog: www.RiderBlog.NotLong.com
For Immediate Release
Saturday, 11 December, 2011
Wal-Mart working to repeal San Diego superstore ban
by Richard Rider
In November, the San Diego mayor, the city council, the labor unions and the downtown business subsidy Establishment (the Chamber of Commerce, etc.) got their collectivist backsides handed to them on their Prop D sales tax increase. With a 62% NO vote, it was the most lop-sided defeat of a sales tax increase I’ve seen to date. After an epic battle, it was a particularly satisfying win for the rest of us.
Now some of these same losers are facing a second, potentially larger humiliating defeat next spring. A majority of our city council recently voted to impose a de facto ban on Wal-Mart superstores in the city.
Bad decision. And it’s about to become a REALLY bad decision.
Wal-Mart has decided to go to the mattresses on this one. Apparently they are tired of labor union-controlled politicos banning what clearly is a popular business service — selling groceries and other goods at a substantial discount, saving families thousands of dollars annually.
Without fanfare, Wal-Mart is spending the needed bucks to referend the Wal-Mart ban ordinance — to bring it to a public vote. Perhaps you’ve seen the professional signature gatherers outside Wal-Mart, Vons and other stores. There is not the slightest chance that they won’t qualify this voter referendum for the ballot.
A referendum differs somewhat from a proposition or initiative. It is not a vote to PASS a law. It is a vote to RESCIND a law recently passed.
A referendum is VERY difficult to do — usually. Opponents of an ordinance have only 30 days after a law is passed to print petitions (which must include the full ordinance), collect the needed signatures and submit them to government.
Too often such a referendum is a ragtag effort, and fails to succeed in the short time frame allowed. But Wal-Mart is no ragtag outfit.
It appears to me that Wal-Mart has drawn a line in the sand. No mas!
And they’ve chosen well in selecting San Diego as the major city battleground against union attacks on Wal-Mart and on consumers. San Diego voters are sick and tired of labor unions running our state, county and city governments — not to mention our school boards.
While San Diego is not a particularly conservative city, the Prop D vote shows a widespread distain for our city leaders and their bigger government agenda. Where labor union endorsements USED to be a positive thing for candidates and causes, such is no longer the case here.
I predict that supporters of consumer choice (the Wal-Mart position) will win the election by a 2 to 1 margin. Labor can spend its usual big bucks on their propaganda, but Wal-Mart spending will make it an even contest. And an even contest means defeat for the labor unions.
The Wal-Mart ban supporters have only two lame arguments to offer:
1. “It is not a ban.” Wrong. With a city council controlled by labor, and with a majority city council vote required to okay a Wal-Mart superstore application, the ordinance clearly IS a ban. Wal-Mart knows it, and so do the labor bosses — who are surely gloating over their recent victory against the public — and especially against the lower to middle class folks in the city.
2. “A referendum special election will cost the city millions.” Yes — and no. A special election (which will be required) with only the Wal-Mart referendum on the ballot could theoretically cost up to 3 million dollars — IF a conventional election is held with precinct polls, etc. But if the election is a mail ballot, the cost could be far less — I’d guess it would cost about $800,000 – $1,000,000.
Such a mail ballot has been done before in San Diego. In the 1980’s we had a special mail ballot election concerning taxpayer funding of the downtown convention center. The voter “turnout” for the arcane special election was astonishingly high — and that was decades ago when few voted “absentee.” Today half the citizens in San Diego routinely vote using a mail ballot.
But there’s an even better solution. While the city’s Wal-Mart ban is now a law, the city council can pass a new ordinance to rescind the ban.
Of course, even with the addition of consumer champion Lorie Zapf, the council still appears deadlocked 4-4 on this issue. But, faced with an unneeded special election and the accompanying humiliating defeat, one or more of the Gang of Four labor union sycophants may decide that they don’t need their teeth kicked in by voters — again.
I must admit, the frisky soul within me relishes the idea of this election. If the city council refuses to rescind the ban — saving the city the cost and aggravation of a special election whose outcome is clear — I will look forward to joining the consumer coalition that will take our union-owned politicians to the wood shed for a much deserved, good old fashioned whuppin’.
–30–
Comments 1
Author
I also post to Facebook, and sometimes even put a link on Twitter. I had an interesting comment exchange on Facebook with a reader concerning this identical article.
Thought perhaps some of you would like to read this exchange. Or not. Your choice!
*
John Rippo —
Dunno why you’re sticking up for them, Richard. If Libertarianism means anything, it ought to mean that the people of a given community get to describe the forums they want for themselves; it’s the champion of what some call Local Option. The big boxers are the antithesis of that concept and they’re the capitalist equivalent of big government’s one size fits all approach to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or some damn thing or the other.
*
Richard Rider —
John, you don’t understand the concept of libertarianism. It’s not about what size government should run your life. It’s about letting YOU decide how to run your life, as long as you are not harming others using force or fraud.
If your two neighbors decide they don’t like your room addition, or the shrubs you planted, or your house color, they should not be able to make such decisions for you simply because there are two of them and one of you.
Walmart offers CHOICE. You are free to not go to Walmart, and even to encourage others to boycott them (or any other business you don’t favor). But you should not have the right to use the police, courts and jails to enforce your opinion on others.
*
Richard Rider —
John, all I’m supporting is a public vote of the people on whether or not to ban Walmart. Isn’t that EXACTLY what you are calling for above???
Why do you think it’s okay for five union-owned politicians to impose such a ban, but somehow “not libertarian” (or democratic, or whatever) to let a simple majority of the VOTERS decide on such a ban??
VERY odd position for you to take.
*
John Rippo —
Richard, flip the proposition: I don’t think it’s okay for any large business entity to come into a city or county with a view toward underselling the small town competitor until the mom and pop is driven out of business and then become the monopoly business of that kind in a locality. We had that before and the Sherman Anti Trust Act helped deflect this for awhile. I like choice as much as the next fellow and usually my choice is to do business with the fellow I know who employs locals who may have a higher standard of living because of his employing them instead of being wage earners for a large firm. Call me a cantankerous capitalist, but there it is.
Walmart and its kind are all for destroying choices of consumers in the long run and shaping the markets to suit them only. I’ve seen this in the coffee trades for twenty years where Sbux is concerned and this is no different. As for union pols, I’m not excited by such generally, especially when the local kind are willing to gut the city to save their pensions, but at the moment the bastards mentioned are all we have to work with. And as any good boy scout will tell you, you sometimes have to work hard to achieve success even with the shoddy, lackluster, inefficient, badly made and poorly disposed tools at hand.See More
*
Richard Rider —
John, you’re an economic Luddite. You fear change if it harms existing jobs or businesses.
After WWII the big box stores started opening, doubtless you would have been leading the opposition. No, not against Walmart, or Costco, or other current big box stores. You would have been against Piggly Wiggly, Von’s, Ralph’s and other supermarket chains that came into towns, undercut the corner grocery stores and put them out of business.
You’d prefer small, dark little grocery stores that offered less fare at higher prices, often paid lower wages, were less sanitary and, most important, were less desired by consumers. You would have supported a law to continue this backward way of doing business — forbidding innovation in your own community, and reducing people’s well-being.
Whatever else you call yourself politically, don’t try to say you are a libertarian (or capitalist). You like local control, with a HEAVY emphasis on control. It’s the Green Party position, not the LP position.
Local control is better than national controls, but NO government should limit consumer choice to protect competitors. Choice is what freedom is all about.
*
John Rippo —
I think you have a bad habit of putting words in other’s mouths. I’ll let it go at that.